I was someone that had mixed feelings on the original D&D movie. I thought the script was clunky, the acting was awful as far as good guys were concerned, it contained wildly inappropriate dialog for the setting, and the tone made light of what could have been dramatic events. On the other hand, the movie looked good, had a couple decent fight scenes and the huge Dragon war at the climax was dynamic and exciting. Still, with it's less than impressive reception, I figured this would be a series of one.

Imagine my surprise when a sequel was announced, and even greater shock when I watched the films premier and found it to be everything I felt it's predecessor lacked. The acting, while not Oscar worthy, was perfectly reasonable work from a handful of unknowns. The plot is treated seriously this time around, with a minimum of cliché and jest (Although there are two laugh out loud moments) and actually features an intelligent foe with a genuinely epic plan for the forces of justice to combat. Speaking of which, the heroes are a nice diverse bunch, and the film manages to showcase each one's unique talents well.

As for the action and eye candy, there's plenty. The fights are staged better than 90% of the action flicks on the shelves, with realistic flow and quick pace. The special effects are among the best I've ever seen in a non-theatrical film and are leaps and bounds above any other Sci-Fi premier yet broadcast (Though not quite as good as a theatrical release). The final battle is not as kinetic as the first films finale, but manages to be a fitting climax to the quest.

If this is what this crew can produce with a terribly low budget, I say give them 70 million bucks and get Dungeons & Dragons III in theaters ASAP!

In spite of the fact that it (reportedly) had about half of the budget of the rather embarrassing D&D film that was released in theaters a few years ago, this Sci Fi Channel movie is superior in almost every way, both as a tribute to the game and as film-making in general.

One of the main reasons that this film stacks up favorably against its predecessor is due to the fact that it seems to have been made by people who have actually played the game, or at least read the rulebook. Fans of the pen-paper-and-dice adventures will be happy to recognize the setup of the story: A party of adventurers (Fighter, Priest, Mage, Barbarian, Thief) journeys through a series of dangerous locales (haunted forest, goblin village, trap-filled dungeon, etc.) in order to recover the powerful artifact that can save the world from certain doom. The somewhat trite storyline is what lends the movie some of its charm- it feels like an adventure that you would actually play in the game.

The cast of unknown actors and actresses do a good job with the decent script they are given to work with. There is not a whole lot of character development, but the cast does a good job of actually coming across as medieval adventurers, as opposed to Hollywood actors with swords and silly costumes (as in the original movie). they avoid the use of any anachronistic modern slang or demeanor. More importantly, they follow most of the rules of D&D adventuring (the types of spells and methods of spellcasting, searching for traps and secret doors, barbarian rage, etc). Though veteran players will be shocked and dismayed that they ignore the most important adventurer's rule: always protect the Cleric.

My main objection to the film is that things happen too fast - many of the events that should be significant in the story just don't feel significant. Powerful characters, both good and bad, are defeated and sometimes even killed much too quickly and easily- I think the movie would be much more effective if it made these events seems more important- perhaps through better music, perhaps through cutting away to other scenes and then coming back in order to make the fights seem longer, and also by taking more time to show how the characters react to things as they happen. These are the kinds of things that would have turned a decent film into a very good one.

I should be in geek heaven. Another Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) movie? After the critical hit that the first one took, I wouldn't have thought it possible ... but clearly someone has more faith in the franchise than the viewing public.

Wrath of the Dragon God is better cinematically than the original, but just isn't as much fun. While the first went for all the clichés (including the initial tavern rendezvous) and the full-on dragon war climax, the latest seems oddly low key ... despite its typically apocalyptic plot line.

Over a century has passed and Damodar (Bruce Payne) has returned from undeath with another foul plan for world domination. A band of experienced adventurers is hastily assembled - representing all the major character classes (a fighter, mage, cleric, rogue and barbarian) - to thwart him. And that's pretty much it.

There's a decent dungeon crawl sequence and some okay fight scenes, but it all seems very pedestrian and just an odd rehash of Hawk The Slayer (still, in my humble opinion, the best non-D&D D&D movie). We do get a pretty 'realistic' cinematic interpretation of Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons, some eye candy in the Xena-esquire shape of the barbarian Lux, fanboy in-jokes (in the shape of adventure module name dropping e.g. 'Barrier Peaks' and 'The Ghost Tower of Inverness' to name but two) and a few snippets of witty banter.

But for my two gold pieces, it could have been so much more. If the movie makers were trying to breath new life into the franchise they should have tried to make something that was dramatically different from the first, not just another version. In this sort of low-budget fantasy adventure fare, one quest is very much like another - whatever trinket the champions are seeking.

And enough with the CGI dragons already...

999 experience points to the writers, cast and directors for effort, but not enough to take them up a level yet.